Rival Growth Proposals on Crash Course

Two rival growth-control measures appear headed for a clash on the November ballot--one giving Thousand Oaks residents the power to protect public open space from development, the other letting voters control certain zoning changes.

The first initiative, proposed by Planning Commissioner Linda Parks, would prevent any publicly owned open space from being zoned for another purpose without first getting approval from a majority of voters.

A rival measure suggested by Mayor Andy Fox would require any development proposal that exceeds the city’s General Plan standards for density to be placed on a future ballot. The City Council intends to hold a public hearing in coming weeks to fully debate the proposal before deciding whether to place it on the ballot.

A jubilant Parks said Wednesday that she had gathered almost 11,900 signatures--well over the 6,400 required to place the measure on the ballot. City Clerk Nancy Dillon said she could not confirm how many signatures Parks handed in, adding only that “there were more than enough to check.”

“I’m awed,” Parks said regarding the number of signatures that she and her volunteer aides gathered. “It was an incredible amount of support for such a short time frame. The last few days were hectic. Just three days ago, I only had 8,000.”

County elections officials must still check the signatures within the next 30 days to determine whether enough are from registered Thousand Oaks voters to qualify the initiative for the ballot.

If Parks’ open space initiative is to appear before Thousand Oaks voters in the fall, it will certainly be without any help from the City Council.

Displaying their characteristic political split again, council members Tuesday voted 2 to 2 to shoot down a request by Councilwoman Elois Zeanah to automatically place Parks’ initiative before voters, saying it only belongs there if Parks gathers the required signatures. Councilman Mike Markey abstained.

“This has been a very popular ordinance, and it’s going to get on the ballot, no doubt about that,” Zeanah argued before the vote.

But Councilwoman Judy Lazar, who stated that the Parks initiative was not her “favorite by any means,” said its popularity remains to be seen.

She said Zeanah’s assertion that Thousand Oaks will be wasting up to $5,000 to verify the signatures instead of supporting placing the initiative rings hollow, considering Zeanah’s support for spending $100,000 to hold a special election last year to fill the council seat vacated by Frank Schillo, who became a county supervisor.

Instead of appointing Markey, the runner-up in the 1994 elections, the divided council held the special election. Markey won easily.

Although they disagreed on whether it would solve the most crucial growth problems facing the city, council members Tuesday unanimously endorsed Fox’s proposed growth-control ordinance.

Zeanah and Councilwoman Jaime Zukowski had criticized Fox’s plan because he had originally talked about it as a way to make sure that Thousand Oaks does not exceed the General Plan’s estimated population cap of 138,000. They pointed out that in other cities, growth ordinances based on limiting population have been struck down in state courts.

But City Atty. Mark Sellers said Fox’s ordinance was completely different--and legal--because it focused on making sure that the zoning designations in Thousand Oaks’ General Plan were adhered to unless voters decided otherwise.

“It has nothing to do with population,” Fox said. “It has everything to do with density and total build-out of the city.”

The General Plan, or blueprint for growth, has established zoning for each part of the city. Under Fox’s plan, if a developer wanted to build a larger commercial or residential project than the General Plan allows for that area, a decision to rezone the land would go before voters.

Zeanah supported Fox’s ordinance, saying she is for anything that gives residents more control over growth. But she charged that his proposed solution to residents’ concerns about growth--which she labeled a “feel-good ordinance”--would not take care of the issue.

“I don’t know that I can address YOUR concerns with regards to growth, with all due respect,” Fox replied.

Meanwhile, the council voted 2 to 2, with Markey abstaining, to shoot down a “quality of life” growth-control ordinance from Zeanah, which she had placed back on the council agenda despite a previous council rejection.

The ordinance would have prevented any development that exceeded the General Plan’s thresholds for noise and air quality from going forward without voter approval. It would have also required developers to pay more money to cover the costs of providing police, libraries and other city services.

During an initial vote Tuesday, it appeared that Zeanah had received enough council support to place her plan before residents in November. But Lazar, who was clearly not in support of Zeanah’s plan, asked for a second vote, saying something had clearly gone wrong since the council’s divisions were clear.

“I guess I messed up,” Lazar said. “I must have hit the wrong button in my annoyance.”